Page v. Boyd-Bilt

Edward Page, appellant herein, employee of Phillips Construction Company, was allegedly injured on March 26, 1966, when he
stepped upon a roofing nail while working on a construction job. The general contractor in charge of constructing a building
for Ark-Mo Power Company in Blytheville, was Phillips Construction Company. Boyd-Bilt, Inc. appellee herein, had no connection
with Phillips, but, according to a complaint filed by Page against this company, appellee had allegedly purchased a dwelling
located on the work site, and had agreed to move the dwelling and clear the site in order for Phillips to proceed with construction
of the office building. The complaint asserted that, in tearing down the garage next to the dwelling, agents, servants, and
employees of appellee had been negligent in allowing nails and other dangerous objects to be spread and scattered about the
premises upon which Page was working, in disregard for the safety of others rightfully working upon said premises; that appellee
was further negligent in failing to clean up or "police" the area in which Phillips employees were working. Personal injuries
were alleged as a direct result of appellee's negligence, and damages were sought in the amount of $50,000.00. An [246 Ark
Page 354] answer was filed by Boyd-Bilt, Inc., admitting that it was a corporation, but denying all other allegations as
to negligence, injury, and damages. The answer was subsequently amended to assert that, if plaintiff received an injury, it
was caused by someone other than appellee; that Page assumed the risk of his injury, knowing the situation, and realizing
that he could be injured. On trial, at the conclusion of appellant's testimony, appellee moved for a directed verdict, which
motion was granted. From the judgment accordingly entered, appellant brings this appeal. For reversal, it is simply asserted
that the court erred in directing the verdict, since there was sufficient evidence offered by appellant to warrant submission
of the case to the jury. We first point out that, since we are dealing with a directed verdict, we must take that view of the evidence which is most
favorable to the party against whom the verdict is directed, and, if there is any substantial evidence tending to establish
an issue in his favor, it is error for the court to take the case from the jury. In testing where there is substantial evidence,
the testimony and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against
whom the verdict is directed, and, if there is any conflict in the evidence, or where the evidence is not in dispute, but
is in such state that fair-minded men might draw different conclusions therefrom, it is error to direct a verdict. Huffman
Wholesale Supply Company v. Terry, 240 Ark. 399, 399 S.W.2d 658.